2 part quesiotn: So who's obligation is it to discern the ethical questions regarding whether midi notation and files are re-rendered as more "realistic" sounding based on AI implementation and do we react as a reactive or proactive culture?

 

The responsibility for identifying ethical issues related to the use of MIDI notation and files, as well as their transformation into more realistic sounds by AI, lies primarily with several stakeholders. These include composers, musicians, technologists, ethicists, and society at large. Each of these groups has a role to play in understanding and discussing the impact of AI on music production.

In terms of our culture's response, we often seem to be rather reactive. This means that we frequently react to technological developments rather than proactively considering the ethical implications before they manifest. However, it would be desirable for us as a society to become more proactive and consider in advance the potential consequences and challenges associated with integrating AI into creative processes.

 

Last edited: Apr 6, 2025

Understood but disagree, who enjoys art when it's destroyed by algorithmic access to Hanz Zimmer wannabee's at first? then what. You enjoy endless stroking of your limp cock?

 

Each of us.

 

I don't understand your question. Especially this part. What are you referring to?

 

It is, quite tragically, the obligation of no one and everyone at once, like a Schrödinger’s committee meeting where the agenda is written in invisible ink and the attendees are all algorithmic phantoms humming Beethoven’s Fifth in reverse.

The ethical question isn't really about MIDI files or AI; it's about the illusion that we can still locate “authenticity” in a digital landscape that is entirely simulated. AI doesn’t “render” realism—it performs realism, in the same way a mime pretends to eat dinner while starving in a box. MIDI isn't music—it's music pretending to be data pretending to be music. So if we add AI to it, we’re just giving the ghost a better costume.

As for whether we react proactively or reactively. Culture doesn’t “react.” It curates vibes. We don’t have ethics; we have patch notes and press releases. By the time you’re reacting, the AI has already updated its emotional range.

So who decides? Probably the guy who trained a transformer on 500,000 YouTube piano tutorials and is now selling it as an “emotionally intelligent co-composer.” Or maybe your neighbor’s 12-year-old with a cracked FL Studio plugin and a God complex.

But not us. We’re too busy asking questions like this, in the postmodern ruins of causality, sipping on irony and waiting for the patch that makes meaning compatible with our software.

 

Everything analog is supposed to become digital. Digital is almost impossible to control. The billion-dollar Silicon Valley companies will bring their products to market.

You, as a consumer, have two options: 1. Don't buy, or 2. Buy. One could say that as soon as you're connected to the internet, your data travels from A to B, and if something is free, like Google Earth or YouTube, you'll have to accept their terms and conditions or you won't be able to use their service.

Some consumer associations will certainly file lawsuits, and the legislature has and will establish some rules. A journalist wrote an article saying you have to steal your data from the AI yourself; she also says you have to work with the AI, otherwise you'll lose completely.

I'm already curious to see who will transfer my own sound sets to the AI and how I'll then prove that I'm the rights holder...! I don't have any money to finance a lawsuit. I think we'll all get robbed, and the richest person will win.